The Bristol district attorney is asking the Supreme Judicial Court to change a long-standing legal doctrine in order to maintain the conviction of former Patriots star Aaron Hernandez. Under that rule — called “abatement ab initio” — his guilty verdict was voided because he committed suicide before the appeals process was complete.

This is not the first time this controversy has come up in Massachusetts. When defrocked Roman Catholic priest John Geoghan was murdered in his prison cell by a fellow inmate, his conviction for sexual abuse was vacated and there was an uproar.

Even before that, in 1996, John Salvi III was convicted of terrorist attacks on two abortion clinics but his suicide vacated his convictions and there was an uproar.

The arguments are still the same and they are not trivial. The victims are frustrated and horrified that somehow the record is wiped clean and that justice is not served.

The public perceives that a criminal evaded justice. These are precisely the arguments that the prosecutors bring to the appeal asking that this doctrine be abolished and that the appeal continue with someone appointed to stand in for the late Hernandez.

There is force to what they say. Further, there is very little sympathy for Hernandez as a person, but neither Salvi nor Geoghan were sympathetic figures either.

And yet, I do not think this rule should be abolished. At the end of the day, the essence of the criminal process is one that is personal and direct. The government is accusing a specific individual of something not just incorrect or inappropriate, but of a crime worthy of penalty such as imprisonment (or, in other states, death). This is very different from civil trials or other forms of state action because it contains a moral component.

The jury verdict is important, but so is the appeals process which ensures that the moral judgment of society is sound. As such, if the defendant dies before the appeals are decided, he or she removes this essential element of moral judgment society is assured that the gravity of a criminal conviction was correct.

While others might be adversely impacted, this really means that the criminal process has lost its essential purpose.

This will not, and probably should not, change society’s views of the person convicted. I doubt anyone suddenly thinks better of Aaron Hernandez — they certainly don’t about John Salvi or John Geoghan. Nor would it prevent civil cases from continuing.

From a systemic point of view, the criminal process is specific to the individual and should remain that way.

Evan Slavitt is a Massachusetts lawyer who writes on legal issues for the Herald.